|
Top-level
 @simon_lucy And what if a centralized service goes down? Well, you’re shit out of luck. Which was the case with Google+, Friendster, Vine and a whole lot of services. On the Fediverse, the network persists even if one instance goes down. I can also still read messages from instances that are no longer even active. 4 comments
@simon_lucy You miss the point. Scale doesn’t even matter if Big Social pulls the plug on the service. On the Fediverse, that will never happen. Whatever scaling benefits you believe come from centralization ultimately means jack if the service lacks persistence. Which eventually is going to happen for Big Social—it’s always a matter of time. Meanwhile, the Fediverse is now sending 1 billion messages per month. And it’s doing this because 22,000+ instances are federating right now.  At which point did I say centralisation? Scale always matters and it makes no difference whether it's what you call centralised, single ownership, or multiple individual ownership. @simon_lucy Bullshit. I'm using scaling in the context of "How does 1 billion messages get sent." And it's 100% true that the Fediverse is capable of sending 1 billion messages per month, as we've already just seen. |
Gregory's Server
@atomicpoet not if it's scaled. Yes if it ceases to operate at all. Just like Mastodon instances that fail. You may get historical posts on Mastodon because they are on other instances but that is not scaling that's a kind of eventual consistency.
Don't confuse scaling for traffic with resilience of an overall service made up of independent operators. Resilience, product resilience is important but it is not the same as scaling to a level of traffic that's magnitudes greater than at present.